ruiz construction company for a total contract amount of 1,9 79,86 6 and authorize final payment to the contractor. * j, authorize and ratify the execution of the extension of the joint exercise of powers agreement with the bayshore sanitary district through december 31st, 2012. k, approve commission appointment to the san joaquin tributaries authority commission. mr. pilpher has -- >> i'll use my time wisely. several items starting with 9e on page 16, the commission office address is still the market street address. i assume that will get updated in the proposed permit. i also found fascinating the lead from the spring valley

water company to that certain land in the vicinity of what's now 19,000 [speaker not understood], the area near ranchero south of, et cetera, et cetera. >> and the fascination was? >> i had heard that the spring valley water company owned some property in southwestern san francisco in the early part of the 1900s and this explains that. there was -- >> you could have called mr. houser and he would have told you. >> mr. houche? in the archive. >> i was at a presentation at the municipal rail ways history that did tie that to michael o'shaughnessy and talked about the establishment of muni and the water system at the same time. so, i thought that was all very timely. just wanted to point that out. on item f, i assume that the hrc form for the waiver of 12 b and 14 b is going to be updated in the future, given the

transfer of the contract monitoring function from hrc to the new contract monitoring division under the city administrator. on item g and actually -- let me go at it one at a time. item g, i would hope there would be a report back on what is found with the additional testing in san bruno and how that relates to the groundwater storage project on the west side. >> a point, mr. richy, is that the usually course of business? >> [inaudible]. >> okay. >> thank you. and on item j, the extension of the joint powers agreement with bayshore, i understand the need for that because it appears that negotiations are ongoing. it would have been better, in my opinion, had that come before the commission before the expiration of the agreement at the end of september. so, if that were possible in the future, i just would prefer not to see retroactive actions like that.

and finally, on item k, on the appointment to the sjta, which i did not even know existed, for bodies like that and other bodies on which members of staff or the commission served, it would be nice to get some periodic report as to what is happening, particularly in the central valley. >> you have a very good website. i've been on it many times. >> really? anyway, it would be nice to get periodic reports on those bodies which we appoint people eitherver through jpa, m-o-u or such other instrument. >> we will request such a report, commissioner moran and make sure the report is detailed and easy to read. thank you very much. otherwise, i'm good with all these items. >> so, you'll be back for 10 and 13, right. all right. any other comments on the consent calendar? chair will entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> moved and? seconded. all those in favor -- is there any further debate? all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye.

>> opposed? all right, the ayes have it. the report is accepted. and now we move to regular business, item number 10. >> item number 10, discussion and possible action to adopt the revised san francisco public utilities commission rules of order. >> you're on the docket. >> david again. i just want to speak in you is port. these are good clean ups and thank you for picking up the audio recording item that i suggested last time. >> you're most welcome. any other comments? commissioner moran. >> simply that we considered this at the last meeting and given that these were the rules in order for the entire commission, we wanted to make sure that both the full commission and the new president and vice president advised these are the rules we operate by. i think we haven't made significant changes here. it's really just updating it to current practice. >> i want to thank you for bringing that to our attention. well done.

any other comments on item number 10? >> excuse me, espinola jackson. i'm really not sure [speaker not understood]. but when i see roberts rules of order i get concerned, not knowing what the change is actually going to be. will it be that you will be moving from one area to 5 25 golden gate, all of your services and everything, from the building that you're now in? >> mr. moran. >> the changes are relatively minor, addresses one of them, the order of business that was in the rules of order were changed sometime ago, but we didn't bother changing the rules of order to reflect that. that has been changed. there was a change in law about noticing for rate changes. so, that's been conformed.

we don't actually operate by roberts rules of order. we operate by our own rules of order, which are much simpler. it gives the chair a great deal of authority to do whatever seems best at the time. and we do everything by resolution. and the other question would be whether or not you would be moving your meeting time to 5 25, you know, not meeting here. >> meetings will still be here. >> i think ms. jackson is addressing -- dr. jackson is expressing rule 7 where we had in your rules basically, we had special meetings at 1155 market. we are now moving to 5 25 market or another place -- 5 25 golden gate. >> golden gate, sorry, thank you. 5 25 golden gate or in other places as noticed under rule 9. so, we will not be conducting business at 1155 market any more. okay. number one, i was here last, i

made a request of the fact that i would like to see the chc meet in bayview hunters point because when the chc was set up, it was set up there on phelps street. that's where the meeting took place. and coming even -- coming here, i would have to go to 5 25 golden gate the other day and there is no parking in front of the area. and i called to see whether or not you all had a parking lot maybe where we could park and they said, no way. so, my concern is parking and i knew on market street, i stopped going because i couldn't park. i had to park in the alley, it was really dangerous. but i would like to see that, some of those meetings of the cac come back to phelps street so the people that live in bayview hunters point right where that sewage plant is, it is in bayview hunters point. it's not on golden gate and its wasn't on market street, that they can have meetings where i

can attend if nobody else won't attend, i want to know what they're doing. we do have committees that deal with projects that are going on in my community. and i would like to see some changes made with that, not that all the meetings be held at 5 25 golden gate, but there is no parking. you know, i parked in the white in order for my daughter to go into your building at 5 25 golden gate. and i had my motor running. so, when the police came and he saw i have a blue plate, you know, i said, i'm just waiting for someone to return. and by me being under the wheel i did not get a ticket. so, it's very bad, you know, here even at city hall. it's a shame. it don't have anything to do with you. but the fact that all the parking is for staff and for the supervisors and nothing for the residents, you know, that

vote, that have areas to park. and i think something -- i know you can't do anything about it, but i will later on make some concerns and matters known about the parking around city hall. >> we have to park in the lot across the street, too. you know, that's too bad. you park across there, but [speaker not understood]. >> duly noted, doctor. yes. mr. chair, let me point out to you an agenda item today, number 7. so, i put in my card because i thought it was pretty important that i speak about this item. and now, you know as a chair you have a lot of power now. from the audience i could have called point of order and brought that to your attention. >> you should have din that. no, no, i chose not to do

because it would be a disruption. you went on very quickly for the [speaker not understood] report and the consent calendar. but in the city and county of san francisco, i know you listen to a lot of the committee meetings. it's very important that we have public comment. and it's very important that we have public comment on matters such as this because very often we think that there are thing that go on with lafco and there are things that go on with some of the employees at sfpuc that whatever transpires within those areas is all the information, but there is much more. for example, we had a small committee way back in 2001 when there was no lafco, there was no barbara hill. there weren't a lot of the people here who are talking about cca.

but we were the first group, focus group after the state legislation -- because we went to sacramento and we were aware of that -- to do many things which i wanted to explain. but i'll do that at the lafco meeting. but i just wanted to bring that to your attention and i would very much appreciate here in san francisco public comment is very important. thank you very much. >> absolutely. and i know you have never been shy nor has dr. jackson to come up to the podium. so, please don't be shy in the future. just come up to the podium. i'm very new at this, so, give me some time to get used to the issue. any other comments? all right. item number 11. we have legislative director here, benita fox. >> we need to vote on item 10. >> is there a motion? >> moved. >> second. >> moved and second to adopt the rules of ard. all those signify by saying aye. >> aye.

>> all those opposed? motion carries. ms. fox, item number 11, members. >> item 11, endorse changes to the san francisco administrative code by amending section 14 b.2 to increase contracting opportunities for certified sfpuclbe. >> good afternoon, commissioners. robin fox legislative affairs director for the cup, manager [speaker not understood] provided a quick overview of this agenda item. so, the purpose of this japed item -- agenda item is to seek conditions we would like to propose to the san francisco board of supervisors for our city's local business enterprise lbe ordinance. and specifically, what we would like to do is change the definition of puc regional projects. the context for this proposed change or the context for the puclbe program is that in 2006 as the city was developing the lbe program, we developed the

puclbe program to expand opportunities for small business he located within our regional service area to access construction -- the water system improvement program projects. as you all know, the $4.6 billion program, two-thirds of which is paid for by our regional wholesale customers. so, we felt its was critically importantv that the small businesses located in those areas where those projects were taking place could compete. the program has been very successful in creating that opportunity for regional businesses throughout the sfpuc service area. with the water system improvement program in its later phases of implementation, we would now like to change the definition of puc regional projects to include, one, all regional projects that are cost shared with other jurisdictions. and then, two, any projects that are more than 70 miles

outside of san francisco, even if they're fully funded by city funds. there has been a really robust process in developing these proposed changes. veronica from the civil rights commission who is here today can answer any technical questions, worked closely with general manager carl kelly. and the advisory committee to develop these changes. and, so, we hope that you will endorse them and again, veronica is here to answer any additional questions you might have. >> i would like some public comment. lisa [speaker not understood].

>> i'm glad you guys can see me. good morning, commissioners. my name is lisa [speaker not understood]. i am the chair for the sfpuc small permit advisory committee. and i'd like to thank you today for this opportunity to be able to speak to you. anyways, we are in favor of endorsing these changes and we hope that you would also see fit to do the same thing. you guys have done a great job in creating opportunities for contractors out there, the larger and the smaller contractors. myself, i'm going to kind of wear two hats here. i'm also a field representative with the carpenters union, carpenters local 152 in manteca in which i cover seven counties. and through this we've had opportunities for our members to work on that project and the several projects you've had out in our area. so, it's been really good in creating opportunities for the smaller contractors, micros, byness contractors and just for

all. we've also worked with community-based organizations here in our community. we just put a lot of local young men and women to work, sometimes coming right out of high school. some kids, -- spareable also here with you who is from the community-based organization out in my area. and it's been a great opportunity for these young kids because sometimes they would otherwise not have the opportunity to go into an apprenticeship program or any others. so, because of this language in which you guys have created out there in this area, you've also brought up to my area because some of the projects have been out there. likewise, we work very closely with brian thomas and iris martin lopez, and veronica. i also have with me mr. bryant thomas who is also the vice-chair on the small firm advisory committee.

and with me next to me is rick aldridge with carpenters 152 in manteca. we ask that you move forward in endorsing these changes. it's been a great opportunity. we look forward to continuing doing work with you guys and as well as the other people in my community. it's been great. you guys have done a great job. and we look forward to what you'll do out in our area as well along with what you guys are doing out here. thank you for your time. >> [inaudible]. >> thank you, i will. and again, congratulations to you, sir, on your position. >> thank you. >> and commissioner courtney as well. >> brother courtney. >> oh, brother courtney, very good. [laughter] >> we have doctors and brothers here today. >> hey, that works. >> welcome. good afternoon, my name is brian field. i'm the co-chair of the san francisco puc small firms advisory committee. i'm here to hope you guys

endorse the changes to the language of 14 b.2 as per 14 b.5. and to increase the contracting opportunity to the sfpuclb contractors. i'm an electric lal contractor, electrical engineer in your regional areas where you conduct business. so, i can see firmly where this endorsement will increase opportunities for contractors within the footprint of san francisco and also 70 miles outside. currently there's approximately around i would say 240 lbes and with this endorsement, this will have more opportunities for future lbes, especially in this economic current that we're in. san francisco publb the firms i contacted, small firms advisory committee, we look forward to the city and county of san francisco passing this ordinance and for the mayor to sign it. thank you very much.

>> thank you very much. [speaker not understood]. >> commissioners, this is a pretty complicated situation. and in order to go and fully understand this lbe situation, you have to have a good grasp of the labor project agreements and that is why it's good that you have one of you sitting there as a commissioner who can give input about the labor project agreements. now, when we had the water system improvement project, unfortunately, we in san francisco, meaning lbes and many employees did not benefit from many of the job

opportunities. and even at the tail end, what was given to us were jobs where nobody else could do it. and i can relay this project by project, and i have before harlan kelly, ed harrington, karen cubic, tyrone ju, and they kind of understand about this situation. now, what we have here is we have the hrc abruptly transferring compliance officers who deal with lb situations and other compliance

officers to the city administrator's office. then you have you guys in the middle of the situation changing the rules without really getting the input from the lbes. nobody who is not a san franciscan should come here and say, i spoke to some lbes in san francisco and they kind of agree to go with the flow. that doesn't work. we don't want to badger sfpuc. but the fact is we lost on the waste system improvement project, and we were not, i repeat, not lose on the sewer system improvement project. because i have over 500 young men, i brought some of them here. i don't want to fill this chamber with some strong men. i don't want to go there, but

we will not lose unless we have meaningful discussion with the union involved. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. yes, sir. thank you, commissioners, art jensen with bosca. i think this is a great thing the commission did when they extend it had to a regional program to include workers outside san francisco that are paying two-thirds of the water bills and contributing to the success of the system. one question i had about the wording, and i think it's fine the way i interpret it. it talks about projects done in conjunction with bosca member agencies where there is a cost sharing arrangement. and i wanted to mayke it simply matt i can this afternoon. if that includes projects not only on behalf of member agencies and with member

agencies, but also projects done by san francisco bosco which san francisco hold the contracts on, in the event we do have a joint project, does this as it's written cover that possibility. i would read it that way -- >> the answer is yes. okay, thank you very much. >> and you're okay with the other language? yes. >> all right. counsel, do you have anything to add since this came out of your office? >> no, commissioner. >> yes. ms. jackson. espinola jackson. when i recertify, you know, i have some concerns as other people in my community because a lot of the contractors were dee-certified sometime ago. and we are mostly concerned about the local hiring aspect that the city approved. but the one problem that i have with the city and county of san

francisco is that we have compliance officers, mostly all of the departments. but we don't have state certified compliance officers or federal. and what happens is, i mentioned to director harrison in the hallway 2001 day, i said, you don't have anyone that can go out on these job sites to see whether or not the people that are on these jobs are from the city and city and county of san francisco. he says to me, well, espinola, all i do is put on my hard hat and i go on a job site. * i said, yes, look who you are. you're the money man. so, you can do what you please. but you don't write reports to the state about the contractors and whether or not they are abiding by the law.

and he looked at me. he said, i never thought about that. and, you know, it hurts me for the last 50 years dealing with human rights is that their wings have been clipped in order not to make sure that residents of san francisco are included. and you'll need to check just to see how many of these do we have in the city and how many of them are of color and how many of them actually get contracts to do construction work here in san francisco. it's sad, because we know for a fact if a contractor lives in this city, he's going to hire people from the community and from the city and county of san francisco. so, when mr. dee costa speak, he's speaking of what we see and have been seeing over the years. and there needs to be some corrections. so, i don't know how to go into

your -- and see if all the wordingses are correct, but maybe you can make sure something is there stating the fact what really needs to be done in the city and county of san francisco. thank you very much. * >> i think staff heard that. we'll proceed to figure out just how to make that clear. thank you. counsel, we'll have a conversation. all right. any other comments? i have a russell ruby, welcome. my apology, that's randal ruby. >> i'm sorry, randal. i'm with united contractors. we represent over 400 engineering contracting and construction related firms throughout northern california, a number of which are stated right here in san francisco and the city and county. and we want to just go on record as endorsing these changes. we urge the commission to

approve and endorse these changes and recommend to the city and county board of supervisors that they adopt. >> all right, thank you very much. any other comments on this item? yes. veronica [speaker not understood],. i just want to clarify one thing regarding the revision that it has been endorsed by the human rights commission advisory committee as well as the human rights commission, full commission. >> all right. duly noted. any other comments on this item? is there a motion? -- to reflect these changes? >> i'll move it. >> all right, commissioner moran. is there a second? >> second. >> all right. let's note that the management and labor came together on this motion. all those in favor signify by saying aye. i'm sorry, you want to speak to the motion? >> i do. thank you, president torres. i'm sensitive to the comments

that we heard certainly from my brothers and sisters in the carpenters union. in just a moment about that, bob i alvarado who president torres mentioned earlier, is a colleague of oscar de la or he and the carpenters and the laborers are probably the most progressive inclusive trade unions in the region. * bobby it's not even close. in terms of really -- not just allowing things to happen, but planning and strategizing about how to put people to work in our communities. that being said, while i reside in the city and county of san francisco and have for my entire life, i have loyalties and allegiances towards the membership and the workers who live right here right now. and, so, i'm kind of torn. because we do have this regional commitment and that's

what's before us now. the carpenters that show up today, they're not necessarily from the san francisco local. that's local 22. that's pat mull i began. -- mulligan. i was negotiating for 261 members who live in marin county. so, we've always been kind of confronted with this what's good for san francisco versus what's good for working people in general. and i'm sensitive to that. we support local hires, for example, to the detriment of the union members that live outside of this county. those union members that live in san mateo county and those union members that live in marin county. the item before us, i see is slated to go before the san francisco board of supervisors. those officials, they don't have those same concerns. they solely represent or er